LexKRISHNA S/O BULAJI BORATE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
KRISHNA S/O BULAJI BORATE .
v.
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
JANUARY 23, 2001
B
[A.P. MISRA AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]
Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, J936: Sections 4{l)(e), 6,and IO.
Trustee-Removal of -Doctrine of Pleasure-Principles of natural
C Justice-Applicability-Trustee appointed for a term of 5 years under Section
4(/)(e) but removed under Section 6 before the end of his term-Prescribed
· procedure under Section JO not followed-Trustee not given any opportunity
before removal-Validity of-Held: The fields of Sections 6 and IO are
separate- Removal under Section 6 is without stigma whereas removal
D under Section JO is with stigma-Therefore, Doctrine of Pleasure is implicit
in Section 6 and is applicable for removal under Section 6-0nce Doctrine
of Pleasure is applicable neither principal of natural justice steps in nor
question of giving opportunity arises-Hence, removal of trustee is valid.
Doctrines:
E
Doctrine of Pleasure-Applicability of
The appellant-trustee was appointed as a trustee of the respondent-
Trust for a term of5 years under Section 4(1) (e) of the Nagpur Improvement
Trust Act, 1936 read with Section 6 of the Act. The State Government
F removed the appellant from the post of trustee under Section 6 before the
expiry of his term. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant. Hence this appeal.
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that removal of the appellant
without giving him any opportunity and without following the procedure
G prescribed under Section 10 of the Act was violative of principles of natural
justice; and that without any explicit words in Section 6 doctrine of pleasure
could not be applied.
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that there was no stigma
while removing a trustee u/s 6 but there was a stigma when removed u/s 10;
H
504
>
KRISHNA S/0 BULAJI BORATE 1•. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
505
and that the doctrine of pleasure is impliCit in Section 6.
A
The following question arose before this Court:
Whether Section 6 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 confers
power on the state Government independent of the power of State Government
under Section 10 to remove the Trustees appointed under Section 4(1)(e) at B
the pleasure of the Government even before the Trustee concerned completes
a period of five years?
Dismissing the appeal, the Court.
HELD : 1. The fields of Section 6 and Section JO of the Nagpur C
Improvement Trust Act, J 936 are separate. The removal spoken under Section
6 is removal without any stigma while the removal under Section JO is
removal with penal consequences attaching stigma. If submission for the
appellant is accepted, viz. Section 6 empowers and Section JO lays down the
condition and procedure to remove, then removal of a trustee could only be D
for penal consequences and not otherwise. If that be so, there could be no
reason to enact Section 6 as Section 10 covers such cases. It is significant
that removal under Section 6 is confined only to such trustees who are
.C.
covered under Section 4(J)(e) and who are also nominated by the State
Government. Rights of trustees falling under the aforesaid Clause (e) are
rights created under a statute and hence that very creator can always limit E
or curtail such rights. Jn such cases, if a trustee is removed, he cannot
project any grievance that no opportunity was given to him. If any right which
is a creature of statute is limited or curtailed by that very statute, in the
absence of any other right under that very statute or the Constitution of
India, such trustee cannot claim any right based on the principle of Natural F
Justice. 15J l-A-DI
2. The removal spoken in Section 6 of the Act casts neither stigma
nor lead to any penal consequences. This clearly reveals the doctrine of
pleasure, which is implicit in the Section. In any statute expression of the
will of the legislature may be explicit or it may be implicit. It is open for the G
courts, while interpreting any provision to spell or read with other provisions
of the statute if so intended to read implicitly, in the absence of any explicit
words that sub-serve the intent of the legislature. (511-D-EI
3. Once doctrine of pleasure is applicable neither the principle of
natural justice would step in or any question of giving opportunity before H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[200 I] I S.C.R.
A removal would arise. It is significant that when stigma is castExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.